Supreme Court rules against Green Party constitutional amendment petition

The Democratic Green Party of Rwanda filed in the Supreme Court an application against the Government of Rwanda seeking several declaratory orders. It alleged that the State had failed to stop the process of amending the Constitution which had started with members of the public submitting petitions to Parliament calling for the amendment of article 101 of the Constitution to enable the incumbent President of the Republic to seek another term of leading the Country.

Among others, Green Party sought declarations that Article 101 of the Constitution is unamendable, that article 193 which deals with the required procedures for the amendment of the Constitution does not open the door for the amendment of article 101, in particular the part that states that no person may hold of the office of President for more than two terms.

The party argued that the only amendment of article 101 possible under article 193 was on the duration of the term of office, not the number of terms. Green Party also argued that allowing the referendum aimed at amending article 101 of Constitution would undermine democracy.

In its judgment delivered today, 8 October, 2015, the Supreme Court’s bench of nine judges led by the Chief Justice, held that there was nothing in the Constitution that prohibited the amendment of article 101. Although Article 193 provides a complex procedure for amending Article 101, it does not prohibit amendment of any of its parts, meaning that if that procedure is properly followed both the duration of presidential term and the numbers of terms are amenable to amendment.

Further, the Court held that amending article 101 through the procedure provided for by article 193 including super majorities in Parliament and a referendum would not undermine democracy. On the contrary denying citizens the right to determine how they are governed following procedures laid down in the Constitution would be undemocratic.
The Court questioned the wisdom of a people binding themselves and future generations in perpetuity without the flexibility to bring the law or the constitution in line with changed beliefs and circumstances. The application was therefore dismissed.